WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
AND IS SUBJECT TO:
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act…
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person…
(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
CITATION: R. v. R.W., 2010 ONCA 169
DATE: 20100305
DOCKET: C51361
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Laskin and Goudge JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
R.W. (Young Person)
(Appellant)
Paul Calarco, for the appellant
Rochelle Direnfeld, for the respondent
Heard: March 4, 2010
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice E. Allen of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 22, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We are not satisfied that we should interfere with the sentence. It cannot be said that the sentence is clearly disproportionate to the offence. In our view, there was ample evidence to support the trial judge’s determination that the sentence was warranted and served the purposes and goals of the Act.
[2] The appeal is dismissed.